The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-11-06


the grant and OF the acceptance that the
acceptance did not give the corporation
a vested right in it
But, assuming that the acceptance of
the charter did not give vested right
In IL, the claim is made that the second
section of an Act OF Congress approved
July 1st, 1862, made the charter as
thereby limited, law of the United
State, and not subject thereafter to dis
approval or appeal. The section is
this:
SEC ,. Ind be 1t further enacted, That the
following ordinance of the provisional
government OF the State of Deseret so-called
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, J"
passed February eight, in the year eighteen
| hundted and ffty-one, and adopted, re-en-
acted, aud made valid by the governor and
Legislative Assembly of the Territory OF
Utah BY an act passed January nineteen, in
the. year eighteen hundred and fifty-fve,
entitled AN act in relation to the compila-
ton and revision of the laws and resolutions
IN force in Utah Territory; their publication
parts of acts heretofore passed by the said
Legislative Assembly OF the Territory of
Utah, which establish, support, maintain
shield, or untenance polygamy, be, and
the same hereby are. diSapproved and an
nulled: Provided, That this act shall be so
limited and construed IS not to fleet or in
terfere with the right of property legally ac-
quiIed uuder the ordinance heretofore men
toned nor with the right Ito worship God
accord ngto the dictstes Of conscience" but
only TO aHnul ali acts and laws which estab-
lIsh, maintains protect, or cOun, enance the
practice OF polySamy, eyasiVely called
spiritual marriage, however disguised by
legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sscra-
ments, ceremonies CONSIDERATIONS, or other
contrlvanceS
In the enacting clause OF this
section the charter in cues
ton termed AN Ordinance in
cooperating the Church of Jesus
Christ OF Latter day Saints" is repealed
in express terms; but the proviso limits
the effect of the entire act in these re-
spects; first, so that it shall not affect
the right to property legally acquired
under the charter; second, so as not to
interfere with the right to worship God
according to the dictates of conscience:
third, so as to annul only all acts and
laws which establish, main tain, protect
or countenance the practice of polyg-
amy, eyasively called spiritual mar
riage, however disguised by legal or
ecclesiastical sOlemnities, sacraments,
ceremonies, CONSIDERATIONS or other con
trivances. The enacting clause was not
limited to the prOvisO in the two re-
clause simply repealed the charter with
out interfering with the rights of prop
erty which had bean acquired under it,
nor did it interfere with the right to
! worship God according to the dictates
of conscience. And tits not clear that the
third hmitGtiO mentioned left stand
ing any portion of the charter; for it is
| expressly stated that the intention OF
| the law was to annul all laws coun-
/ tenancing polygamy or spiritual mar
riage, though appearing in the law
| disguised by the name Of sOlennity,
| q sacrament, q ceremony, C0nse-
! Grafton, or under any other cOntrigapce;
and under Just such marks Is these, We
think, polygamy does appear in the
charter OF the Church OF Jesus Christ 0f
| Latter-daY Saints With all such dis
| guises and contrIvanCe5 stripped from
| this charter, little, comparatively syeak-
! ing, is lett Of it.
| But assuming that the express cd in
! tent to annul all acts counter ancing
! polygamy lett other provisions in force,
was the remainder of the charter made
an &C. OF Congress? Such in intention
| is not expressed. 1t must have bsen so
Tnade by implication. From the pToYi-
sions of the act of 1862 it is clear that
Congress did not regard the charter as a
contract, otherwise it would not have
charged its provisions. We may as
sumo that Congress changed the charter
according TO Its conceptions of duty at
! the time, with the understanding thati5
might be- changed further or altogether
disapproved, whenever in the OPINION
of Congress the good of society required
such change or disapproval. We do
not think that the act of Congress Of
1862 affords circumference that so much
OF the charter as remained IL force was
| in effect a law of the United States.
! Tbs view seems 10 DC IL accord
ance with the opinion OF the Supreme
! Court of the United st tes III the case Of
! Miners Bank vs.. Iowa az Howard II
/ The Territorial Legislature OF WIsCou-
| sin chartered the Miners Bank. Alter
wards an act Of Congress annulled the
! charter in certain particulars. but left
other Of its provisions in force. There
! after the Territory was divided by act
/ OF Congress and the Territory of Iowa
was erected over that part OF tue former
| Territory of Wisconsin IN which the
bank was situated. La er, the Territor-
ial Legislature OF Iowa repealed the
| charter and directed the settlement of
| the affairs OF the corporation by
| trustees under the supervision of the
instituted against the bank. In decid
ing the case on appeal the Court used
this language: 1T has been argued in
this case that as Congress in creating
the Territorial government of Wiscon-
sin and Iowa reserved to themselves
the power of disappearing and thereby
annulling the acts of those govern
ments, and had, in the exercise of that
power, stricken out several OF the pro-
visions of the charter Of the Bank of !
Dubuque, enacted by the Legislature
of Wisconsin, asserting to the residue; |
that, therefore, the charter of this bank
shoald be regarded as an act Of Congress
rather than Of the Territorial govern
ment. Congress in creating
the Territorial governments, and in con-
ferTing upon them powers of general leg |
islation, did not, from obvious principles |
OF policy and necessity, ordsin sus-
pension Of all acts proceeding from |
those powers, until expressly sanctioned |
by themselves, whilst, for considera-
tons equally strong, they reserved the |
power OF disappearing or annulling such |